Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Fili, Sep 7, 2012.
I do not understand this. Bounties to put players out of games with injury is ok?
From what I've been reading..overturned but not reversed so it is being kicked back to the Commish where he can make suspensions still but probably not in same range. Players will get salaries for being on roster in 2012.
Bullcrap. If a player or coach was found to have been participating in any way, they should be banned for life from the NFL.
Too bad league offices are closed for the weekend huh?
First thing Monday morning they'll look at this.
All this ruling says, is that God"ell has to provide indisputable evidence to the court that there was a bounty system in place. This is the way it should be. IMHO
BTW, I cant stand God'ell, but the Saints are guilty as he**. IMHO
Does God'ell have the evidence? Doubtful
This all goes back to God'ell covering his a** in the conussion lawsuit?
From what I read the players can actually go back to playing if the team allows them to.
Is that correct?
i'm hearing they'll be eligible to play week 1, and the commish will probably have made a decision on how to handle things before week 2.
So if Goodell does nothing, he displays weakness.
And he can't suspend them the same amount of games he did previously, since it was lifted by the arbitration panel.
So look for him to suspend them maybe 1 or 2 games. Agree?
OK then, but they'd have to ban the whole league for life.
I am speaking of a "pay to injure" scheme, not a player simply playing hard. There is a huge difference, and those that can't understand something that simple, please don't bother posting replys.
I say again, if someone was involved in such a thing, they should be banned for life from the NFL.
I think you've cut to the crux of the issue. Was it "Pay to Injure" or simply "Pay for Performance"??
We all know what pay to injure means but pay for performance could mean anything from a bonus for the most tackles or hitting hard enough to cause fumbles or hitting hard enough to separate a WR from the ball thus preventing a catch or getting sacks.... anything beyond those types of things should result in suspension.
In any court, tribunal, or whatever Goodell thinks he's holding, the fair thing is to present the accused with proof of guilt then give them a shot at presenting a defense. I haven't seen or heard where Goodell has publically presented any solid proof regarding pay to injure. That is where the panel of judges tripped him up. Or rather he tripped himself up.
None of the coaches will be coming back. They didn't appeal. That should tell you something.
If Godell got this wrong, then he got it wrong and the judges made the right decision. If If If.
However, my stance on "pay to injure" stands. Pay for performance as you said can be taken many ways, and if it means number of sacks or tackles or TDs, fine. But when it slides into paying players to take out or injure, even disguised in fancy wording, then it's wrong.
I understand the difference, and I believe there was "consideration" offered for knocking key opposing players (of course we are talking principally QBs here) out of the game.
People need to understand the court's decision was on procedure and had nothing to do with the merits.
Separate names with a comma.